Journalist who exposed Bofors reveals the politics behind the scam

Sevanti Ninan, editor of The Hoot, shares credit with me for the recent revelations by Sten Lindstrom on the 25th anniversary of the Bofors-India story.

I say this because Lindstrom's interview also raises some questions about the role of the fourth estate in a democracy and the expectations of whistleblowers who normally leak information to the media, protection of sources as well as protection of reporters.

Chitra Subramaniam-Duella.The Hoot addresses media issues in its effort to create a space for responsible journalism. Lindstrom is not a journalist, but in his long career as a police officer in Sweden, he has interacted with many journalists as well as politicians and bureaucrats.

"I have some idea about how all this works and could make some contribution to the growing need for accountability and responsibility," he said on Friday.

In India, the usual variables have kicked in.

Some news channels are asking if Bofors has outlived its political utility, is there anything new, are we flogging a dead horse, is there a foreign hand, etc.

Bofors was a political story because it brought a prime minister down. There was no foreign hand, no external plot. We let ourselves down in full view of the world. Bofors showed us up.

We bought a good gun. The price was competitive. Its shoot and scoot capacity - where the enemy cannot lock into a trajectory and destroy the attack - helped us win the Kargil War.

Nobody except some ill-informed politicians questioned the quality of the gun. A parliamentarian asked me if she could stay with me when she travelled to Sweden to inspect the gun. I told her I lived in Switzerland.

Swedish investigator Sten Lindstrom.Bofors showed us how in the face of irrefutable documentary evidence detailing bribes and cover-ups, institutions set up to protect us were made to turn against us.

It showed us how every political party sought to protect its space without thinking of us as a nation.

We are making the same mistakes today as we did a quarter century ago. Many media organisations and some politicians are shooting and scooting and targeting each other without realising that India has moved on and is looking for answers and solutions.

I was on an hour-long chat organised by CNN-IBN on Thursday and an overwhelming number of questions related to how we can bring the guilty to book at all levels, build institutions and work towards a proud and vibrant India.

Of particular interest in l'affaire Bofors is the bribe paid to A.E. Services, a front for Ottavio Quattrocchi.

Click here to EnlargeOne of my key sources in Switzerland had said over 20 years ago that the Quattrocchi angle "was an open and shut" case.

Congress spokesperson Mani Shankar Aiyar is entirely right when he says that our first letterrogatory (LR), the document that precedes international assistance in these matters, was a shabby one.

But he is entirely wrong in saying that the former managing director of Bofors, Martin Ardbo, had never visited India, was looking around for someone to bribe and had difficulties with spelling.

The known Rs 64 crore swindle was not about Wren and Martin. India does not know how much was paid in bribes because some of the contracts with middlemen had retaliatory clauses.

Ardbo almost lived in India during the negotiations. He told Lindstrom that he had no choice but to pay A.E. Services at the last minute.

The company came into the picture out of the blue, chipped into commissions and promised Bofors that the contract would be inked within a prescribed period, failing which it need not be paid.

When you read the contract, it says nothing about the services that will be rendered to swing the deal for Bofors. This is not an ordinary middleman's contract. No middleman can tell you when the contract will be signed.

As Indians, we have to rise above the political football that Bofors has been turned into. All political parties share the blame - you'll remember our postman minister who arrived in Switzerland with a letter asking the Swiss to close the investigation. That letter was promptly leaked to me in the early nineties.

So where do we go from here? For one, there is no need for any committee. That will mean more committees and sub-committees and vested interests will rush in.

Committees in India are a way of not taking responsibility. There will be numerous signatures passing the buck and no action items. We also have to ensure that busy-bodies trying to help the cause be weeded out immediately. They are in it for personal gain espoused as public and national interest.

The cause does not need any help - the facts speak for themselves. They tell a compelling and startling story that has stood up in Swiss courts considered to be the world's toughest.

When the scandal surfaced, B.M. Oza was our ambassador to Sweden. His 1997 book, Bofors - the Ambassador's Evidence, tells us all we need to know about how the cover-up was organised. It is a good resource, a diplomat's view on how our foreign service works.

And finally, let us not forget that this is India, the world's largest free market economy calling.

We have all the evidence, the finest legal expertise and the world's largest group of people under 30 who are waiting for an answer - why was Quattrocchi paid for the Bofors gun deal?

India needs to make just one phone call to get the answer. The world is watching.

---- The writer is a former journalist and co-founder of CSD consulting in Switzerland